See, I still do not think he's Bacon. None of the iterations of Bacon ever came off as a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth progressive like Sappy does. Bacon sounded more like an anarchist.
The new religious right in America
- Thread starter Sapidus
- Start date
See, I still do not think he's Bacon. None of the iterations of Bacon ever came off as a rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth progressive like Sappy does. Bacon sounded more like an anarchist.
SamSpade
Well-Known Member
*shrug* - I never understood the need to return to any forum if I had been booted from it.
Not that it's ever happened - but I was on one once where the members didn't like what I had to say, and I left.
This_person
Well-Known Member
I don't
This is a biblical belief? Can you help me see where, in the Bible, denying the climate changes is a Christian standard?
I'm going to assume you mean whether or not to call same-sex unions "marriage" by the state. If that is what you mean, I would tell you that has nothing to do (for me, since you're asking ME why do I think it's ok for certain policies) with religious beliefs. My position is that we allow the government to register our unions (at our voluntary request) and offer small and insignificant perks (as well as some disadvantages) because time has shown that a man and woman who register their relationships have a positive impact on society (lower crime, higher home ownership, higher civic involvement, stronger employment numbers, etc.), thus making it in the government's interest to allow these small perks. However, in my opinion, by making divorce so easy the gains of marriage have been significantly reduced, and I believe government should get out of allowing people to voluntarily register their relationships with the government altogether.
I would never deny anyone their right to reproduce. My position has nothing to do (directly) with religion. My position on this is that if a woman makes the choice to risk reproduction and a new life is created (whether it was her desire or not) she does not have the right to kill the new person as an elective. Of course she has the right to risk reproduction, she just doesn't have the right to kill people because they are inconvenient to her.
Nope. First amendment stops that.
Fair point. But I know I've seen Sappy's post drool somewhere before....deja vu all over again.
Last edited:
Last edited:
So why do we have these so called religious freedom laws ?
So, we can practice our Religion without government interference. Not complicated.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Hell!!!! If I left because no one wanted to hear what I had to say ,I wouldn't be on any forum.
It also hasn't gotten TJ off of this one LMAO.
But that is not what the effect is the effect is forcing your beliefs on others.
Hijinx
Well-Known Member
Who has forced their beliefs on you little fellow.?
Are you saying that you cannot defend yourself against this force. Poor thing.
This_person
Well-Known Member
What does this have to do with the question I asked? If the climate is changing, and your contention through this response is that you believe Christians simply believe the climate changes because God says so, then why would we deny it? You said denying man-made climate change is a religious requirement of Christians - where is that written?
At this point in time, absolutely yes. However, I'm answering what you MEAN to say, which is whether or not people should register with the government. The government does not register your relationship, you do, voluntarily, with the government. However, the reasons for the perks and disadvantages are no longer nearly as valid as they used to be, and therefore I see no reason the government should provide those perks and disadvantages anymore.
You make a mistake others make when thinking about marriage certificates - they're permission to be together (in your mind, apparently).
A marriage license/certificate does nothing for you except register with the government your relationship. It does not provide permission, there are no government tests you must pass, no skills training you must take, etc. It's simply requesting the government-related advantages and disadvantages.
A driver's license is provided when one passes tests to prove knowledge and skill to drive a car. It suggests that you won't damage other people, because you've successfully proven you know the laws/rules of driving as well as demonstrated you could do so in the presence of an evaluator.
Do you see the difference? Do you get that a driver's license and marriage certificate are apples and bricks, no comparison at all?
Well, now see, this is where I can show you even more that I do not believe laws and religion should be intertwined. From a religious point of view, I would still call those things murder. However, from a secular point of view, if a woman is raped she is not responsible for the life created from the crime. If she has filed a rape report and a judge believes there is sufficient evidence to believe a rape has been committed, I fully agree with that being legal. If the incest is non-consensual (including statutorily), that's rape. If the incest is between two consenting adults, that's not rape, so I can't see why it would be okay to kill the baby.
However, we're talking about literally decimal-point dust in the overall scheme of how many abortions take place annually. According to Planned Parenthood, rape and incest make up less than 1% of all abortions.
To allow the first amendment to exist. The first amendment, with respect to religion, reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. However, many areas have made it very difficult to freely exercise their religion. For example, if one finds themselves a Muslim baker, and a same-sex couple asks to have their wedding cake made, the baker should certainly be allowed to say, "NO" because they do not want to support something for which their religion tells them not to support. A group of nuns should probably not have to pay for maternity insurance (or any insurance just for existing, but I digress) since them being sexually active is counter to their religious beliefs. Many laws have been passed, or regulations enacted, that restrict these free expressions of religion.
This_person
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you can give an example.
I'd sure like to see one too.
just the opposite...the effect is not letting you force your beliefs on us....just sayin'
People who don't believe in abortion shouldn't get abortions. They should not try to regulate when , where or how other women should get them.
People who don't believe in abortion shouldn't get abortions. They should not try to regulate when , where or how other women should get them.
If you don't want to get married to someone of the same sex don't. Exercise your right to your personal religious freedom
i don't believe the unborn want to be aborted, maybe you should ask them and if they say yes, go ahead. BTW its not just a Religious thing.
As for gay dudes. if you want to stick it up another dudes a$$ i don't care, it their "choice" but i don't have to bake them a cake.
Last edited: